Nikon officially announces the Nikon Z 9, and it’s a remarkable $5499
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Canon marketing-> Scrolls thru forums. Gauges the level of Customer Justification level for Product pricing on behalf of Canon. Checks preorders vs production numbers. Damn should of priced it at 6500.
A great hi-res prograde camera at a very fair price. I really hope the future Canon R1 combines the best of the R3 with the Z9. Could be done with quad-pixel array and pixel binning? Time will tell. One thing I did learn is that if one wants to shot lossless RAW files with a 45 MP sensor it appears the limitation is 20 fps, which while not as fast as 30 fps is still very good. If I were a Nikon shooter I would buy two of these cameras a likely not buy another camera for many many years.
Wow the price. I think Nikon hit a home run, though I’m sure these will be close to impossible to get kind of like the R3 which I have backordered from 4 different stores. i was about ready to cancel my R3 order, yet Nikon is still lacking in the shipping of longer Z lenses.
oh well Canon is really charging a premium now for the R3 which in may ways has been out speced for the Z9.
oh well Canon is really charging a premium now for the R3 which in may ways has been out speced for the Z9.
Certainly possible, but nobody posting here really knows the details of any manufacturer's production, distribution, or marketing costs, so such statements are nothing more than speculation. Most posters here are generally Canon fans, so we assume that whatever Canon charges is "normal", despite evidence to the contrary.
Product pricing is a complex issue. Microeconomics 101 teaches that pricing is simply a matter of maximizing profits. Charge a lower price and you sell more units but make less profit on each one. Charge a higher price and you make more profit on each sale, but you sell fewer units. So you try to find the happy medium for maximum profits.
In the real world, there may be other, more strategic, considerations in pricing. Companies charge a lower price and sacrifice some of those profits in favor of market penetration. Maybe that's what Nikon is doing here. Or they charge a higher price and give up some sales in order for the product to be perceived as more exclusive. Maybe that's what Canon is doing with the R3.
Nikon have had no choice but to go in with a competitive price. They've been out of the picture for so long they have to try to get back in somehow. They need money fast to recover their investment in D&D.
Big pixel numbers look good on the shop shelf next to other cameras but this is a pro camera. Pros don't really need or want numbers that big until comms technology advances to the point where they can download, edit and then upload the files quickly. Pros won't be fooled by specmanship either. It's how it performs in the hand and in the field that matters to them.
Big pixel numbers look good on the shop shelf next to other cameras but this is a pro camera. Pros don't really need or want numbers that big until comms technology advances to the point where they can download, edit and then upload the files quickly. Pros won't be fooled by specmanship either. It's how it performs in the hand and in the field that matters to them.
I agree. This release reinforces my belief the R1 will be a high megapixel monster. Canon will not be absent from the high MP pro body market for long.
Go Nikon! It certainly sounds like a phenomenal camera, and the price seems fantastic given the specs. Will be very interesting to read reviews in due course, but it seems like Nikon might be back in the game (which is a good thing for all of us).
A while ago Nikon stated that they would be moving all camera assembly out of Japan and into China / Thailand, so that includes the pro ‘flagship’ bodies. I guess this camera will not be produced in Japan either at all or after the initial production, so if that is the case there will be a cost saving to Nikon compared with Canon who have kept higher end equipment made in Japan.
What percentage of customers will pay extra to have a product made in Japan ? Personally I like the fact that most of my Canon gear is made in Japan, but I would not like to estimate what monetary value I place on it. I’ll accept a small premium to be sure.
Before people point out that the equivalent products made in Thailand / China / Philippines have just the same quality, that’s not where I find the psychological issue; it’s just down to a Japanese product being made in Japan. Outdated concept no doubt, but I like it.
What percentage of customers will pay extra to have a product made in Japan ? Personally I like the fact that most of my Canon gear is made in Japan, but I would not like to estimate what monetary value I place on it. I’ll accept a small premium to be sure.
Before people point out that the equivalent products made in Thailand / China / Philippines have just the same quality, that’s not where I find the psychological issue; it’s just down to a Japanese product being made in Japan. Outdated concept no doubt, but I like it.
This sounds like everything I hoped the R3 would be. If it had been announced a month ago I might have seriously considered switching to Nikon. For now I'll continue to explore mirrorless with my R5 and maybe reconsider next year, when the Z9 is likely to be more readily available. Who knows, Canon may release a similarly spec'd R1 by then for <$6,000 
I suspect that the R3 probably has marginally better AF, a (much) bigger buffer for RAW, and smaller size. For me, if I didn't need more MP and preferred dual-CFexpress card slots, I'd prefer the R3.
The EOS R is basically that. I guess the form factor is slightly different, but it's the exact same sensor and they are cheap to acquire now. I took many great photos on it before trading it in for an R5.
Funny to read all the comments comparing the Z9 with the R3 by people who have used neither. Still, very impressed to see that people know what a camera is worth by reading the spec sheet. I guess I am old fashioned, but I believe until you use a camera for at least a few weeks, you won't really know how good (or bad) it is. I learned that lesson when I bought the Sony A7 II...haha!
But I am hopeful that this is a really good camera and it will convince people that Nikon makes a really fine camera (and top of the line lenses.) I recently sold my Canon R and have (for the moment) switched my FF camera to Nikon. For those looking for a more affordable FF mirrorless camera, I would look into the Z5 or Z6. I would consider those cameras a better value than the RP or R, and if you don't need the tracking AF and higher FPS, than the Z6 or Z7 (mark I or II) are more affordable choices that the R6 or R5. The "S" lenses that I have tried are also fantastic.
Of course, based on my earlier statements, don't just take the word of someone on the internet! But if you get a chance to try them out, I would. Nikon, alas, in my opinion, has been the victim of a lot of negative propaganda on the internet, quite the opposite of Sony , which has prospered due to that propaganda. Given the choice, I would recommend Nikon over any comparable Sony offering.
I guess I am old fashioned, but I believe until you use a camera for at least a few weeks, you won't really know how good (or bad) it is. I learned that lesson when I bought the Sony A7 II...haha!But I am hopeful that this is a really good camera and it will convince people that Nikon makes a really fine camera (and top of the line lenses.) I recently sold my Canon R and have (for the moment) switched my FF camera to Nikon. For those looking for a more affordable FF mirrorless camera, I would look into the Z5 or Z6. I would consider those cameras a better value than the RP or R, and if you don't need the tracking AF and higher FPS, than the Z6 or Z7 (mark I or II) are more affordable choices that the R6 or R5. The "S" lenses that I have tried are also fantastic.
Of course, based on my earlier statements, don't just take the word of someone on the internet! But if you get a chance to try them out, I would. Nikon, alas, in my opinion, has been the victim of a lot of negative propaganda on the internet, quite the opposite of Sony , which has prospered due to that propaganda. Given the choice, I would recommend Nikon over any comparable Sony offering.
The Z9 certainly makes the R3 seem considerably overpriced to me. I thought it was overpriced when introduced but placed an order anyway. My only real disappointment with the R3 at introduction was the 24 MP. I really wanted 45 MP and hesitated for three hours opening day to place an order, so likely will not be receiving it in the first batch.
Even before the Z9 introduction I was waffling on the R3. This weekend I will probably make up my mind whether to cancel the R3 and place an order for an Z9 and Z7ii and some starter lenses and begin selling off some of my Canon lenses. With the fully electronic shutter, what appears to be even a more sophisticated AF system, equivalent handling (although a bit different) and frankly a better back LCD for a wildlife-landscape photographer and the 45MP, the Z9 simply appears to be a better camera for less money.
The question remains about some important lenses. The 400/2.8 + 1.4x looks great but how heavy? The 100-400 looks great and is certainly light and compact enough, but optically how good? Canon's 100-400 ii and 100-500 are superb and the best lenses per dollar I have ever had. Can the Nikon match that? They could not with the old F mount lens. I very much like my 24-105/4 RF lens and use it for landscapes without hesitation as I did the 24-70/4 L IS before it. The old F mount 24-120 was a decent lens but not up to D850 standards.
Encouraging about a switch is many if not most of the Nikon S lenses have been superb and in some cases preferable, at least optically, over Canon RF lenses. Examples are the 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 and the 14-24/2.8. That said, we are talking pixel peeping and not real world usage in the field making real prints to sell for someone's wall.
Even before the Z9 introduction I was waffling on the R3. This weekend I will probably make up my mind whether to cancel the R3 and place an order for an Z9 and Z7ii and some starter lenses and begin selling off some of my Canon lenses. With the fully electronic shutter, what appears to be even a more sophisticated AF system, equivalent handling (although a bit different) and frankly a better back LCD for a wildlife-landscape photographer and the 45MP, the Z9 simply appears to be a better camera for less money.
The question remains about some important lenses. The 400/2.8 + 1.4x looks great but how heavy? The 100-400 looks great and is certainly light and compact enough, but optically how good? Canon's 100-400 ii and 100-500 are superb and the best lenses per dollar I have ever had. Can the Nikon match that? They could not with the old F mount lens. I very much like my 24-105/4 RF lens and use it for landscapes without hesitation as I did the 24-70/4 L IS before it. The old F mount 24-120 was a decent lens but not up to D850 standards.
Encouraging about a switch is many if not most of the Nikon S lenses have been superb and in some cases preferable, at least optically, over Canon RF lenses. Examples are the 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 and the 14-24/2.8. That said, we are talking pixel peeping and not real world usage in the field making real prints to sell for someone's wall.
Similar threads
